![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I color-corrected the photo of Justice Kagan, in order to eliminate much of the feeling that the backgroud looked too flat.
The corrected version is here.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kagen-color_corrected.jpg
If others think it is worth relinking, please do so.
Thanks. Marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyInTucson ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering why neither Kagan nor Sotomayor have anything at all in their opening paragraphs that detail their decidedly liberal stances on the Court? I think everyone would agree that these two Associate Justices are members of the Court’s liberal wing, and I’m sure there’s plenty of citations to support it. Further, it’s not like any other Justice lacks a description of where they stand on the Court politically speaking. Don't believe me? Observe: (taken from the opening paragraphs of each Justice's own Wikipedia page)
Roberts: “He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Scalia: “Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing." Kennedy: “Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions." Thomas: “He is generally viewed as among the most conservative members of the Court." Ginsburg: “She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court." Breyer: “Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court." Alito: “Alito has been described by the Cato Institute as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak.”
Kagan: (nothing)
Soromayor: (nothing)
What gives? I’m sure it’s an oversight, but if so, could someone who’s logged in please rectify this in order to conform to all the other Justices’ opening paragraphs? Fair is fair, after all... Thanks 122.25.244.97 ( talk) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Should there be mention of this? According to our page on U.S. Supreme Court Justices, she is the 100th one overall. As this is an important number in Western Society, should that be mentioned.
A sidenote; I cannot myself do this at the moment, as I can't access the appropriate link to check, but if I am wrong in my reasoning I would love a response, thank you.
If anyone would wish to add that, here is the link I suspect would be the appropriate reference, from the Court's own website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.pdf Cheers.
"She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship" As she was born in 1960, should that be the 1980 scholarship? 75.15.163.251 ( talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)just wondering
The battle on the article page cannot continue. The IP has reverted a bunch of times. DHeyward has reverted twice. Other editors, including me, have reverted once. Frankly, I don't see why the two ELs can't remain. As articles go, particularly one of this stature, it's very few ELs. If someone thinks they are otherwise inappropriate (not because of the length of the list), let them explain why here. Regardless, no more reverts by anyone, or I'll seek full protection.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
DHeyward, I'm sorry to hear you have no clue, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you. Here are your latest edits, in context:
07:13, 30 January 2014 DHeyward (talk | contribs) . . (47,835 bytes) (+266) . . (Undid revision 593080592 by 71.23.178.214 (talk)kept addition, udid deletion
07:07, 30 January 2014 71.23.178.214 (talk) . . (47,569 bytes) (-237) . . (→External links)
13:44, 24 January 2014 SporkBot (talk | contribs) m . . (47,806 bytes) (-290) . . (Remove template per TFD outcome)
You have this page on your Watch list, along with the rest of the SCOTUS judges. Pretty hard to miss when that Template was deleted, because ALL of the Justices would have been listed at the same time. Do you really expect me to believe you had absolutely no curiosity about that? That you didn't even check the diff?
JudgeLinks|scotus=yes | fjc = 3289 | llc = kagan.php | lii = kagan | oyez = elena_kagan | judgepedia = Elena_Kagan | washpo = Elena_Kagan | c-span = elenakagan | imdb = nm4309964 | opensecrets = | nyt = k/elena_kagan | worldcat = lccn-no95-27810 | nndb = 295/000167791 | findagrave =
If you're interested enough to watch these pages, I think you'd recognize 'scotus' and those abbreviations of legal websites. You'd recognize C-SPAN and the New York Times. You'd know Worldcat would be about the books she's written. So what exactly are you claiming as an excuse for ignoring this?
Are you also claiming you didn't check
the discussion? Not likely, so let's assume you looked at it. Three people made comments: Thargor Orlando (never previously shown any interest in SCOTUS that I could find), an IP whose only complaint was that it didn't work for non-US judges, and SteveStrummer (also no previous interest in SCOTUS). You know the other people you regularly update the SCOTUS pages, so you'd notice NONE of them made any comments. Are you claiming you still weren't curious about what was going on? I just have a really, really hard time understanding why you, and the rest of the people keeping SCOTUS on your Watch lists, have been micro-managing every single edit...with the exception of this one. So why don't you explain just what went through your mind, and what you did, when you saw every single Justice pop up on your Watch list at the same time? It was only about a week ago, so you should be able to remember. Then I'll consider your request to not mention you again, and perhaps even discuss your definition of "full on asininity". I definitely have some thoughts on that latter point.
71.23.178.214 (
talk)
14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that this is a fairly well-referenced WP:BLP, I think it best to limit External links to content that cannot be incorporated in the article. Even then, we need to follow WP:BLP and keep an eye on proper neutrality.
Here's the list, in case some could be used to help verify or expand the article: -- Ronz ( talk) 21:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ms. Kagan, 45, is credited with overseeing a renaissance at the law school during her nearly three years as dean, and many of her fans believe she could achieve the same for the entire university if given the chance.
[T]here is near unanimity that the school's dean, Elena Kagan, a scholar of administrative law and a former Clinton administration official, has galvanized the place with her ambition and adroit management style, knitting together the faculty, charming the students, and attracting top-flight talent to the school.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".
She's very much an Obama type person, a moderate Democrat, a consensus builder ...
GoodDay has removed the statement in the lead that Kagen is the 112th Associate Justice several times, stating that there is a consensus against it. I have asked GoodDay several times to link the discussion, but so far the link has not been provided. Sundayclose ( talk) 02:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't remember which WikiProject the consensus was reached at or exactly what year. But, I do remember that it was agreed that numbering associate justices would be confusing for readers, because associate justices serve concurrently. GoodDay ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A consensus was reached here, in 2012 for the removal of the numbering from the infoboxes. I thought it included removal from the article intro aswell, but I was wrong. Anyways, I've already asked for input from the related WikiProject, concerning article intros. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This New York Times editorial discusses a few of Kagan's early writings for the Court and her writing style. It may be helpful in trying to update the Supreme Court tenure section, if not directly as a source but as a starting point. Knope7 ( talk) 02:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Jurisprudence will eventually be added to this article, Cooper v. Harris would probably be a good case to include. Kagan wrote the majority opinion on a case that reviewed gerrymandering in the state of North Carolina. Knope7 ( talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://whoswhoinamerica.com/elena_kagan/dean_law_educator/occ10/7280125{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4463/lessig-rejoining-faculty-1.577371{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=22934When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
To the article on Elena Kagan, I plan to add a section on her Supreme Court jurisprudence and voting record. All the Supreme Court justices have sections on their voting records but Elena Kagan doesn't have this section on her Wikipedia page.
I am still looking for good sources on her voting records and I would love guidance on doing so. According to sources, Elena Kagan doesn't do interviews and her private judicial papers remain private. This is why there is very little record on her voting record.
Elena Kagan: A Biography by Meg Greene is a book I'm planning on using for this section.
Tamaracyoung ( talk) 04:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I just read through the section of "Tenure as Justice" and I noticed it only talks about the times she voted with the majority. None of the times she was overruled as the minority is listed. This seems very out of balance to me and I have tagged the section's neutrality until fixed. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see this article reach Good Article status. This article reflects a lot of nice work by several editors. I think we can build on that progress to push this article over the line. I'm working on a jurisprudence section. I also think we need to 1) add more about her actual work as Solicitor General, currently the section focuses on her confirmation and includes a line of criticism without really delving into what she did; 2) add to the recognition section, find where she has received awards or honors; 3) add a personal life section, I've already founds some good sources I can share with anyone interested in paining a picture of Kagan outside of her work. Knope7 ( talk) 18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Mine! I look forward to this review. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Reviewer: DannyS712 ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
|
|
|
I'm going to stop here. This article needs a copy edit before I proceed. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
Lead
Knope7 ( talk) 01:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Early life
Knope7 ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Education
Early career
Knope7 ( talk) 04:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Return to academia
Solicitor General
Supreme Court
Personal life
I think maybe we should discuss some of the comments for the Tenure, Jurisprudence, and other sections towards the end of the article. The constant "rewrite" comments are an issue for me. Are you requesting I rewrite entire chunks of the article? I don't think that is necessary. I would also ask if you have consulted WP:GACN. You and I may have very different styles. The question isn't whether the article meets your preferences, but does the article meet the GA criteria. I do not believe the article needs to be re-written to meet GA criteria. Knope7 ( talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
She does not represent normative Torah Jews. Believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.83.145 ( talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elena Kagan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.110.12.48 ( talk) 13:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The article says that she was sworn in at the White House, but the two references (100, 101) say it was at the court itself:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Oath/oath_kagan.aspx https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38591634
Should this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.91.143 ( talk) 07:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
She agreed with Justice Breyer in his dissent and in favor of allowing executive power to override a First Amendment Right in the face of scientific/medical uncertainty. Effectively, she favors science over law (but she's not a scientist; she'a a lawyer). See Roman Catholic Diocease of New York vs. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 ( talk) 11:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elena Kagan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justice Kagan has never said she practices conservative Judaism. 24.15.227.151 ( talk) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tamaracyoung.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lbmchenry.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I color-corrected the photo of Justice Kagan, in order to eliminate much of the feeling that the backgroud looked too flat.
The corrected version is here.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kagen-color_corrected.jpg
If others think it is worth relinking, please do so.
Thanks. Marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyInTucson ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering why neither Kagan nor Sotomayor have anything at all in their opening paragraphs that detail their decidedly liberal stances on the Court? I think everyone would agree that these two Associate Justices are members of the Court’s liberal wing, and I’m sure there’s plenty of citations to support it. Further, it’s not like any other Justice lacks a description of where they stand on the Court politically speaking. Don't believe me? Observe: (taken from the opening paragraphs of each Justice's own Wikipedia page)
Roberts: “He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Scalia: “Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing." Kennedy: “Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions." Thomas: “He is generally viewed as among the most conservative members of the Court." Ginsburg: “She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court." Breyer: “Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court." Alito: “Alito has been described by the Cato Institute as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak.”
Kagan: (nothing)
Soromayor: (nothing)
What gives? I’m sure it’s an oversight, but if so, could someone who’s logged in please rectify this in order to conform to all the other Justices’ opening paragraphs? Fair is fair, after all... Thanks 122.25.244.97 ( talk) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Should there be mention of this? According to our page on U.S. Supreme Court Justices, she is the 100th one overall. As this is an important number in Western Society, should that be mentioned.
A sidenote; I cannot myself do this at the moment, as I can't access the appropriate link to check, but if I am wrong in my reasoning I would love a response, thank you.
If anyone would wish to add that, here is the link I suspect would be the appropriate reference, from the Court's own website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.pdf Cheers.
"She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship" As she was born in 1960, should that be the 1980 scholarship? 75.15.163.251 ( talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)just wondering
The battle on the article page cannot continue. The IP has reverted a bunch of times. DHeyward has reverted twice. Other editors, including me, have reverted once. Frankly, I don't see why the two ELs can't remain. As articles go, particularly one of this stature, it's very few ELs. If someone thinks they are otherwise inappropriate (not because of the length of the list), let them explain why here. Regardless, no more reverts by anyone, or I'll seek full protection.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
DHeyward, I'm sorry to hear you have no clue, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you. Here are your latest edits, in context:
07:13, 30 January 2014 DHeyward (talk | contribs) . . (47,835 bytes) (+266) . . (Undid revision 593080592 by 71.23.178.214 (talk)kept addition, udid deletion
07:07, 30 January 2014 71.23.178.214 (talk) . . (47,569 bytes) (-237) . . (→External links)
13:44, 24 January 2014 SporkBot (talk | contribs) m . . (47,806 bytes) (-290) . . (Remove template per TFD outcome)
You have this page on your Watch list, along with the rest of the SCOTUS judges. Pretty hard to miss when that Template was deleted, because ALL of the Justices would have been listed at the same time. Do you really expect me to believe you had absolutely no curiosity about that? That you didn't even check the diff?
JudgeLinks|scotus=yes | fjc = 3289 | llc = kagan.php | lii = kagan | oyez = elena_kagan | judgepedia = Elena_Kagan | washpo = Elena_Kagan | c-span = elenakagan | imdb = nm4309964 | opensecrets = | nyt = k/elena_kagan | worldcat = lccn-no95-27810 | nndb = 295/000167791 | findagrave =
If you're interested enough to watch these pages, I think you'd recognize 'scotus' and those abbreviations of legal websites. You'd recognize C-SPAN and the New York Times. You'd know Worldcat would be about the books she's written. So what exactly are you claiming as an excuse for ignoring this?
Are you also claiming you didn't check
the discussion? Not likely, so let's assume you looked at it. Three people made comments: Thargor Orlando (never previously shown any interest in SCOTUS that I could find), an IP whose only complaint was that it didn't work for non-US judges, and SteveStrummer (also no previous interest in SCOTUS). You know the other people you regularly update the SCOTUS pages, so you'd notice NONE of them made any comments. Are you claiming you still weren't curious about what was going on? I just have a really, really hard time understanding why you, and the rest of the people keeping SCOTUS on your Watch lists, have been micro-managing every single edit...with the exception of this one. So why don't you explain just what went through your mind, and what you did, when you saw every single Justice pop up on your Watch list at the same time? It was only about a week ago, so you should be able to remember. Then I'll consider your request to not mention you again, and perhaps even discuss your definition of "full on asininity". I definitely have some thoughts on that latter point.
71.23.178.214 (
talk)
14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that this is a fairly well-referenced WP:BLP, I think it best to limit External links to content that cannot be incorporated in the article. Even then, we need to follow WP:BLP and keep an eye on proper neutrality.
Here's the list, in case some could be used to help verify or expand the article: -- Ronz ( talk) 21:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ms. Kagan, 45, is credited with overseeing a renaissance at the law school during her nearly three years as dean, and many of her fans believe she could achieve the same for the entire university if given the chance.
[T]here is near unanimity that the school's dean, Elena Kagan, a scholar of administrative law and a former Clinton administration official, has galvanized the place with her ambition and adroit management style, knitting together the faculty, charming the students, and attracting top-flight talent to the school.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".
She's very much an Obama type person, a moderate Democrat, a consensus builder ...
GoodDay has removed the statement in the lead that Kagen is the 112th Associate Justice several times, stating that there is a consensus against it. I have asked GoodDay several times to link the discussion, but so far the link has not been provided. Sundayclose ( talk) 02:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't remember which WikiProject the consensus was reached at or exactly what year. But, I do remember that it was agreed that numbering associate justices would be confusing for readers, because associate justices serve concurrently. GoodDay ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A consensus was reached here, in 2012 for the removal of the numbering from the infoboxes. I thought it included removal from the article intro aswell, but I was wrong. Anyways, I've already asked for input from the related WikiProject, concerning article intros. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This New York Times editorial discusses a few of Kagan's early writings for the Court and her writing style. It may be helpful in trying to update the Supreme Court tenure section, if not directly as a source but as a starting point. Knope7 ( talk) 02:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Jurisprudence will eventually be added to this article, Cooper v. Harris would probably be a good case to include. Kagan wrote the majority opinion on a case that reviewed gerrymandering in the state of North Carolina. Knope7 ( talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://whoswhoinamerica.com/elena_kagan/dean_law_educator/occ10/7280125{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4463/lessig-rejoining-faculty-1.577371{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=22934When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
To the article on Elena Kagan, I plan to add a section on her Supreme Court jurisprudence and voting record. All the Supreme Court justices have sections on their voting records but Elena Kagan doesn't have this section on her Wikipedia page.
I am still looking for good sources on her voting records and I would love guidance on doing so. According to sources, Elena Kagan doesn't do interviews and her private judicial papers remain private. This is why there is very little record on her voting record.
Elena Kagan: A Biography by Meg Greene is a book I'm planning on using for this section.
Tamaracyoung ( talk) 04:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I just read through the section of "Tenure as Justice" and I noticed it only talks about the times she voted with the majority. None of the times she was overruled as the minority is listed. This seems very out of balance to me and I have tagged the section's neutrality until fixed. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see this article reach Good Article status. This article reflects a lot of nice work by several editors. I think we can build on that progress to push this article over the line. I'm working on a jurisprudence section. I also think we need to 1) add more about her actual work as Solicitor General, currently the section focuses on her confirmation and includes a line of criticism without really delving into what she did; 2) add to the recognition section, find where she has received awards or honors; 3) add a personal life section, I've already founds some good sources I can share with anyone interested in paining a picture of Kagan outside of her work. Knope7 ( talk) 18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Mine! I look forward to this review. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Reviewer: DannyS712 ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
|
|
|
I'm going to stop here. This article needs a copy edit before I proceed. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
Lead
Knope7 ( talk) 01:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Early life
Knope7 ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Education
Early career
Knope7 ( talk) 04:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Return to academia
Solicitor General
Supreme Court
Personal life
I think maybe we should discuss some of the comments for the Tenure, Jurisprudence, and other sections towards the end of the article. The constant "rewrite" comments are an issue for me. Are you requesting I rewrite entire chunks of the article? I don't think that is necessary. I would also ask if you have consulted WP:GACN. You and I may have very different styles. The question isn't whether the article meets your preferences, but does the article meet the GA criteria. I do not believe the article needs to be re-written to meet GA criteria. Knope7 ( talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
She does not represent normative Torah Jews. Believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.83.145 ( talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elena Kagan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.110.12.48 ( talk) 13:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The article says that she was sworn in at the White House, but the two references (100, 101) say it was at the court itself:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Oath/oath_kagan.aspx https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38591634
Should this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.91.143 ( talk) 07:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
She agreed with Justice Breyer in his dissent and in favor of allowing executive power to override a First Amendment Right in the face of scientific/medical uncertainty. Effectively, she favors science over law (but she's not a scientist; she'a a lawyer). See Roman Catholic Diocease of New York vs. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 ( talk) 11:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elena Kagan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justice Kagan has never said she practices conservative Judaism. 24.15.227.151 ( talk) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tamaracyoung.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lbmchenry.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)